Attenborough weighs in on creationism fight

Sir David Attenborough has joined a campaign calling for creationism to be banned from the
school science curriculum, and for evolution to be taught more widely.

While in power, Gordon Brown's Labour government released
guidance to schools that creationism shouldn't be taught in science
classes, but stopped short of enshrining the recommendation into
law. The coalition government hasn't acted on the subject either.
Attenborough has joined three Nobel prize winners and Richard
Dawkins in protesting against creationism and intelligent design,
asking for it to be completely banned.

The former director of education for the Royal Society, Rev Michael
Reiss, who has in the past referred to evolution as "god's
work", is amongst the signatories. He told the Telegraph: "Evolution is an extremely powerful
idea that lies at the heart of biology. At the same time, it's a
sufficiently simple concept that there's no good reason why it
should be left out of the primary curriculum."

Andrew Copson, chief executive of the British Humanist
Association, added: "The
threat of creationism and 'intelligent design' being taught as
science is real and ongoing, particularly as more and more schools
are opened up to be run by religious fundamentalists. It has never
been more urgent for concrete steps to be taken to ensure that all
state schools teach evolution, and not creationism, and we urge the
Government to implement the simple and sensible measures suggested
in this new statement."

Comments

As long as he stops promoting the error of a 'struggle for survival' and accepts the fact of a nurturing nature. thriving populations and permaculture based evidence of HOW WE CAN WORK WITH NATURE, to improve conditions of life for all life...

There is no god. No one has ever presented any evidence that there is a god.

Michael Cawood

Oct 6th 2011

In reply to Michael Cawood

Evolution is not a proven science, it's a theory; teachers should NOT be teaching it as it is a proven fact. If you are going to discuss one theory (i.e. Evolution), what is the harm in discussing the theory of Creationism? "Evolution only takes a "leap of faith" to those idiots who prefer fiction to observable, recordable fact.Teaching Creationism to kids is essentially child abuse: filling young minds with absolute crap before they are too young to refute what is obvious nonsense."Observable, recordable fact? Ah, yes, I see monkeys turning into men on a daily basis. Child abuse? Ha. The same could be said about drilling "Evolution" into "young minds" as it is simply a THEORY. Science tries too hard to come up with an answer for everything; some things were meant to have no explanation.

Anonymous

Dec 6th 2011

@david sutherland. Then who created God?

Phil

Sep 20th 2011

In reply to Phil

Who created life?

Paul

Sep 20th 2011

In reply to Paul

I really don't undestand how anyone can ask this question. Surely scientists have demonstrated and explained about the formation of molecules and proteins from the primordial soup, how life began?And when people argue, "The chances of random life are a trillion to 1" like that means that life could not randomly occur, I think "What's 1 in a trillion chance, when there were a triliion trillion trillion trillion trillion chemical interactions occuring in the primordial soup. Life ceases to look like an incredible long shot, and becomes a vrtuial certainty.

Kyle

Oct 19th 2011

@phil. Then who created GodMan!

sim

Sep 20th 2011

@CorneliusI expect Attenborough has seen more of the way animals in "nature" live than you have! Permaculture is a way for humans to organise their own lives and the world around them to create a more fecund environment FOR HUMANS and by definition therefore for those species which enhance our well-being. The nurturing is a human activity. The natural world is indifferent. And I like it that way.... I do not want "Nature" to manipulate me in some kind of "nurturing" over which I have no control, thank you, and I certainly do not want meddling from disembodied entities.... fortunately science is demonstrating all the time that no such entities are required.

Syd Foster

Sep 20th 2011

The belief in evolution takes such a leap of faith that it's tantamount to religious belief and the fervor and fanaticism associated with it is just like the religious.Perhaps there's something to the theory but it is a million miles away from being a complete, unanswerable, undebatable idea. The nature of the passionate and unreasonable defensive stance normally attributed to evolutionists is simply not scientific but rather fanatical.Not all people who question evolutionism are creationists, it's not an either/or situation but that is what evolutionists try hard to make everyone think. That if you don't believe in evolution then you must be a religious nut. This is simply gross slander and shows the weakness of their position.The evolution idea has no explanation as to how life began in the first place, in fact no one knows and that is the GREAT mystery. No one has the remotest idea how we got from dead material to living cells, when measured with our super-computers, it's statistically impossible!My stance is that God created life to begin with and planned it to evolve as it has. Not just random chance but for a purpose. I strongly believe that everything happens for a reason.

Paul

Sep 20th 2011

In reply to Paul

That is sophistry at best. Evolution, no mater how you'd like to describe it, is scientific fact, testable and substantiated by thousands of experiments. Change the direction of the argument to 'those' who persecute you and your ilk and we should all feel sorry for you, and therefore unreasonable in our position of fact not faith? If we can't test it we have no opinion one way or another. Oh and if we find out we're wrong we start again and admit it. Evolution is not an opposing position as much as you would like to dress it that way.Your position is one that many share but it is not ultimately testable, this does not however mean that it is a position of strength that needs to be disproved. By your loggic all supernatural entities exist either until disproved or do not exist because nobody believes in them.I have absolutely no problem with disbelief, thats what the scientific method and education are for and they are by no means static in their outlook.

Keef

Sep 20th 2011

In reply to Keef

There are many strong assertions for evolution e.g."Evolution, no mater how you'd like to describe it, is scientific fact, testable and substantiated by thousands of experiments."Name just one experiment that would show a change in species! This is how a physicist would test a theory.And in the same way why haven't we created life from a similiar or even enhanced primordial soup?I am extremely sceptical about evolution because of a lack of direct evidence and an overwhelming amount of dogma from it's supporters.

lanky

Oct 27th 2011

In reply to Paul

Well said... The truth will out!! Laws cannot ever outlaw fact.

Stephen

Nov 25th 2011

In reply to Stephen

Go do some research, nature tends to move to the lowest energy, why would a organism evolve into another that requires more energy? Also research sight, the biggest thorn in evolution's side...

Eben

Dec 5th 2011

The belief in evolution takes such a leap of faith that it's tantamount to religious belief and the fervor and fanaticism associated with it is just like the religious.Perhaps there's something to the theory but it is a million miles away from being a complete, unanswerable, undebatable idea. The nature of the passionate and unreasonable defensive stance normally attributed to evolutionists is simply not scientific but rather fanatical.Not all people who question evolutionism are creationists, it's not an either/or situation but that is what evolutionists try hard to make everyone think. That if you don't believe in evolution then you must be a religious nut. This is simply gross slander and shows the weakness of their position.The evolution idea has no explanation as to how life began in the first place, in fact no one knows and that is the GREAT mystery. No one has the remotest idea how we got from dead material to living cells, when measured with our super-computers, it's statistically impossible!My stance is that God created life to begin with and planned it to evolve as it has. Not just random chance but for a purpose. I strongly believe that everything happens for a reason.

Paul

Sep 20th 2011

In reply to Paul

I agree with you Paul. Andrew Copson, of the British Humanist Association said: "more and more schools are opened up to be run by religious fundamentalists." If we are asking for evidenced based learning - where is AC's evidence schools are being run by fundamentalists?This is the problem with this debate, I don't think creationism should be discussed in science lessons, but this is being used as a weapon to attack religion. I went to a Catholic school which taught us evolution, I expect most other religious schools do too. (by the way I'm not really religious myself)

Jimmy Bike

Sep 20th 2011

In reply to Jimmy Bike

It doesn't strike you as inconsistent that you demand evidence from Mr Copson that "more schools are opened to be run by religious fundamentalists" (no doubt referring to the increase in faith-schools or whatever he called them under Blair, and of course the advent of "free schools" can only make it more likely that such places will increase), while baldly stating with no evidence that "I expect most other religious schools" ... teach evolution. The point is that without supervision those schools may very well choose to distort the science they teach by mixing in the nonscientific propaganda and claiming that it is "another side" in their fantasy of a controversy which only exists in their own ill-educated minds... thus continuing the spread of disinformation and misunderstanding which is so evident in the anti-science posts in this sequence of comments.

Syd Foster

Sep 21st 2011

In reply to Paul

Paul your post is so full of naked assertions displaying total ignorance of the science that demonstrates via many different pathways the fact of evolution! You have the gall to accuse scientists of an "unreasonable defensive stance"! You must be claiming that Creationism is science if you believe that... and yet, by definition, since it makes no predictions and does no real-world research to disprove itself, it is not science, thus the attempts of so-called Intelligent Design propagandists to get Creationism taught in science classes is an unreasonable attack on the meaning and practice of science... so your claim that it is unreasonable for scientists to defend science is nonsense. (By the way, the primary mechanism of the practice of science is to attempt to disprove our own hypotheses through testing predictions based on the hypothesis in question, in order to clarify the questions and clear the field for more appropriate models yet to be devised... a Nobel prize and everlasting fame awaits the scientist who manages to dislodge evolution as a successful theory through such a piece of research... something that thousands of scientists have so far failed to do... and with every result, the jigsaw of pieces and sciences that demonstrate evolution to be a fact grows ever more complete. So your feeble "belief" that evolution is not what we observe in the real world, ie your claim that a supernatural force is manipulating the mechanisms we have observed which enable evolution, is an irrelevant emotional outburst from an ignorant bystander. Go and kneel in your church and leave science to those who are willing to do some real work.) Oh and one more thing which demonstrates your ignorance: evolution says nothing at all about the origins of life. Evolution is the theory describing the way species change over time. Your attempt to conflate the issue of origins of life with the theory of evolution as a criticism of evolution is sheer deception. And finally, how is it slander to point out that your beliefs are religious and nothing to do with science? You admit this yourself! You seem to be "passionate", ie ruled by emotion, and not a very clear thinker!

Syd Foster

Sep 21st 2011

In reply to Paul

@paul I ask again: if God created man, then who created God

Phil

Sep 21st 2011

In reply to Phil

God, our Heavenly Father, was created by his Heavenly Father and Mother. This goes on continually and will go on forever. God has been seen. The prophet Joseph Smith saw him, other latter day prophets have seen him. Of course things evolve! That is part of the very intelligent design. There is no contradiction between the evolution of the universe and all things in it and the fact that there are innumerable planets with intelligent beings on them, and the understanding that there are beings who have evolved and progressed to a level where they can organise (create) life. It is all a "matter" of physical law. There are dimensions beyond this. Science will go on to uncover more truths and it is exciting, so much more to learn. What we need to learn is that others have gone before us , they can travel between dimensions, through time and space, work within the laws of what we call physics and organise amazing circumstances. There is no division between this and my spiritual understanding. Science one day will catch up and it will all come together. P.S. I am not on any halucinogens, don't take drugs, alcohol, have 2 degrees from reputable Universities, love science, know there is a God. Stop arguing, life is great. F

Annie

Oct 14th 2011

In reply to Phil

I'm the biggest atheist going Phil, but why does it follow that if there was a god, that he must have been created? We don't know what existed before the big bang, if anything, so why apply standards to creationism that we don't apply to science?

Kyle

Oct 19th 2011

In reply to Phil

I think I'd want something a bit more credible than the mere word of a couple of people who may or may not have had self-serving agendas before I threw all logic away and started believing in a fantastical superbeing.If I was a god, and I wanted the unwavering devotion of an entire population, I wouldn't lurk around writing on gold tablets, lighting bushes on fire, or revealing myself to a few questionable individuals and assuming my message would be accurately passed on. I'd make a spectacular, recordable, undeniable appearance at the superbowl, or broadcast myself on every TV channel, or appear in the sky, and I'd make my message clear, and I'd teleport a transcript of my message on non-editable DVD or written in each person's native language into the lap of every person on earth. My existence would be unequivocal to all but the most determined self-deluders. But of course, your god doesn't do that because you're all supposed to have faith...You know, I can guarantee that I can resurrect you after your death - all you have to do is worship me and give me a million dollars now. Where's your faith?

Kyle

Oct 19th 2011

In reply to Paul

Evolution only takes a "leap of faith" to those idiots who prefer fiction to observable, recordable fact.Teaching Creationism to kids is essentially child abuse: filling young minds with absolute crap before they are too young to refute what is obvious nonsense.

Intruder313

Oct 17th 2011

I absolutely agree that evolution should be taught rigourously - and introduced early.But - Frankly, if it's not being examined in detail then we shouldn't be suprised if it's not taught properly.This needs to change - In other words there need to be detailed enough questions in the GCSE exams and coursework to be confident that a student who passes has a good grasp of both the major concepts, and of a wide coverage of supporting evidence - so students can answer questions such as "Discuss the evidence that milk is modified sweat".We shouldn't be fixing exams to be easily passed. We should be fixing them so that passing them demonstrates genuine understanding.Only this way will the abject failures of some schools to teach biology properly be truly evident.IMO Creationism, Noodlism etc if discussed at all should be discussed in Religion/Philosophy classes as some people believed this (and some still do) along with enough other creation myths (Norse, Egyptian, Aboriginal, Native american) for kids to be able to see them for what they are.Personally I think that the current school inspection system is just too "pally", If school lessons were all videoed - and school inspectors could view random lessons - then that is another way in which poor teaching would become evident.

Roger

Sep 20th 2011

I'm a taxpayer who doesn't want anybody's religion taught in public school science class. Science belongs in science class, period. And, evolution is good science.On a more basic level though, have any of you scientists any idea on just what you would accept as evidence for "the supernatural"? Wouldn't you call anything that you couldn't explain as "not yet determined"? Maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to go easy on all this "I'm intelligent, and you're a jerk" talk, until you have spome idea about how you would recognize "supernatural", if you saw it. Just sayin...

ed

Sep 29th 2011

In reply to ed

Well if concrete evidence was found for a phenomenon considered "supernatural" then it would by definition no longer be "supernatural", since we could observe and measure it in the natural world.

Joe

Oct 19th 2011

If you teach creationism you might as well be teaching witchcraft. Anyone who is a teacher who teaches creationism should face criminal prosecution.

Michael Cawood

Oct 6th 2011

Filling children's heads with mumbo-jumbo is indeed dangerous.Filling the void with the scientific fact of Evolution is essential...We have come full circle in our understanding of the universe.God certainly did not create man.But man definitely created God.Enjoy life. Live &amp; Let Live

Garry

Oct 16th 2011

Interesting that the last Labour government didn't pass a law on banning creationism being taught in schools. Imagine an idea being against the law?Would that make the Bible an illegal book in the UK?Lanky.

lanky

Oct 27th 2011

this is a great debate, but seems to be slightly off the mark of whether creationism should be taught in schools. I went to a christian school. I was taught all the usual subjects, maths, physics, chemistry, biology, english, french, spanish, geography, history, and religious studies. The only two subjects that talked about religion were religious studies for the obvious reasons and histroy as religion has had quite a significant influence on human history. Creationism has a place so long as it is taught in the right subject. Kids can then grow up knowing that creationism is a religous idea and evolution is a scientific one. by the way, our science department had the highest proportion of actively religous teachers. however they were all good enough to know that there's a time and a place to learn about god and the science class rooms aren't it.

Jolyon

Oct 27th 2011

Much of evolution is based upon guess-work. If creationism should not be taught, neither should evolution. Whether or not one believes in God, there is a greater likelihood of a global flood and volcanic activity creating the geological layers of the earth than billions of years worth of sediment buildup. So many people talk about evolution as though it's an observable fact, without really thinking that it takes millions of years for even the slightest change, and we'd need to wait for millions of years before we could prove things like birds evolving from dinosaurs. It seems that people would believe that elephants can fly as long as it seems to disprove God.

Insensitive Clod

Nov 1st 2011

Well said Sir David. Creationism does not belong anywhere near a science classroom because it is simply NOT SCIENCE. Anyone trying to argue otherwise should not be teaching science. It can still be taught of course, but as part of Religious education where it belongs.

macstu23

Nov 18th 2011

In reply to macstu23

Well said, macstu23. Unfortunately, there is a growing number of people who consider that Religious Education should not be taught either: they seem to confuse the humanities with the earth sciences. But you're quite right - Evolution should be taught in Science classes, and Creationism - in all its aspects (Shintoist, Judeo-Christian-Islamic, Hindu and Buddhist) should be studied as part of a more progressive form of RE.I find it terribly sad that people find they have to "believe" in Evolution. It's tantamount to "believing in gravity" and "believing in the Second Law of Thermodynamics". The necessity for belief stops at the moment that the object of belief manifests itself, par exemple: I believe that I left my glasses in the drinks cabinet. I look there and I find them. Ergo, I no longer need to believe that they were there, because now I know they were.Gods are the same. We believe, or not, because there is NO empirically measurable manifestation of their existence. If any of the many gods on this planet suddenly appeared in the de rigueur fashion, then belief would no longer be required. His/Her existence would be proven.Evolution has been proven time and time again as the ONLY viable theory about the development of life. Someone above remarked that "you don't see monkeys turning into humans every day", but that's just insane and shows a deep misunderstanding of evolution. Firstly, humans did not descend from monkeys: they are our cousins, together with orangutans and gorillas, and so we have a common ancestor. Paleoanthropologists are slowly piecing together the evidence and sooner or later we will know when, where and what that common ancestor was. The same goes for all the species.But the most worrying thing for me is that there is any argument at all along the lines of a Divine Watchmaker. The evidence of the perfection of life is not evidence of an intelligent creator. It is evidence merely that evolution, which takes place of many hundreds of generations, is merely refining organisms in line with the habitat. Need one mention Darwin's finches on the Galapagos Islands?